Introduction ---- The policy of an anarchist organization Alliances, a trend, or a social
movement answer two basic questions: who and how we come together to reach a certain goal,
whether short-term (tactical objective), medium or long term ( strategic line). The
Politics of Alliances can only be effective when it responds to a very well established
program (comprised of militants), they can be applied. The discussion of the program
precedes the discussion of alliances. To know who and how we come together to form
transient or permanent, we must know that we will do so, and this is only possible if we
know for sure, what we concretely. Knowing what you want is basically to draw plans of
medium and long term. If you do not know what we want, we will be guided by the demands
and urgencies of the agendas of the rulers rather than our agendas and build.

Therefore, guided the compass of struggles. The program is the formalization of the
strategic line (set of objectives, strategies and tactics) of a particular organization,
which serves as the basis for all its members and directs all its actions. The program
defines the militants of the particular organization "paths" that will reach certain goals
and what "tools" militants "will use" they are to be achieved.

Apply a policy that requires effective alliances strengthen the organization more
intensely certain political relations over others and prioritize certain activities in its
militancy. For as Bakunin would say, "who embraces very little press." Not clearly define
a policy of alliances, joint means politically haphazardly; flavor of the weak and
unstable alliances that, far from contributing to the goals of the organization,
subordinated others in the program or make your action impotent. As our energies militants
are scarce, define who we relate politically and how these relationships will give is
crucial, not only to prevent excess strain on militants (indeed commonplace in social
movements), but also to do with the organization proceed according to its strategic
objectives.

The unity with other political sectors - be they organizations or ideological movement
popular - must not be pursued at any cost, since the unity of action can not mean submit
or delay our own program, much less our principles. An organization that has programmatic
clarity and to continue its own work social get cement alliances correct without being
hostage to situations, walking thus toward the goals that decided achieve.
Alliances between policy and Informal Networks

The politics of alliances is different than many social movements, autonomous and other
currents of anarchism call for strengthening the "networks". We can not forget that,
within social movements, unions and communities we work with, there are informal networks,
no "structure" (ie, are not structured for some kind of regulation "institutional" that
set), that shape and build emotional relationships , between its social and political
subjects. Ignoring the existence of these networks is to reduce labor activist certain
political myopia, unable to perceive the different relationships that subjects will
establish peripherally, or in its interior. This can be disastrous in practice the desired
political "immediate", trampling relationships that deserve sensitivity on the part of our
membership.

However, an anarchist political organization matrix especifista should always work towards
moving beyond these informal networks. This does not mean believing that these networks
will cease to exist, but simply that the organization works to formalize their structures,
preventing these informal networks "take" control of decision making in social movements
that is. Important task in this regard is, for example, formalizing the processes of
decision and entry of militant social movements in which we operate, instead of letting
the political relations be established by mere informal. The problem of rigging of social
movements by political parties is largely determined by lack of clear decision-making
structures which enable all participants to understand the dynamics of its operation.
Interest groups more organized (or leaders 'charismatic') keep social movements internally
unstructured or poorly structured, to continue to hold sway over its members and internal
power relations "intact" (not always conscious).

Another important point is to work to overcome the mentality that believes that every work
isolated, decentralized and (un) structured informal networks and formal relationship,
contributes decisively to a radical transformation of society. Unlike many Marxists, we
know that a revolution is also made of spontaneous aspects that are difficult to predict
or analyze properly. But in no time, as organized anarchists, we believe that
revolutionary projects happen spontaneously, as accuse us "forever" like a broken record,
our adversaries. A revolution will only happen with a lot of organization. At least,
that's revolutionary reading of historical processes, that only occurred because they were
preceded by a militant work of many years or decades. The broader insurrectionary or
revolutionary processes also occur when a policy of broad alliances of the oppressed is
effectively performed. We saw this in the Russian Revolution, in which peasants and
workers participated in the soviets in hand: in the Spanish Revolution, where workers from
the countryside and the city's stable and formalized alliances also have seen the limits
of political alliances, when, for example, French students tried unsuccessfully to
establish a policy of alliances with his fellow workers, resulting in the inability of the
movement to transform itself into a true revolution.

More recently, the success of a policy of stable alliances, was the formation of the
Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca in 2006, bringing together grassroots
organizations all in one color coordination. The Oaxaca Uprising happened just as
effective a policy of alliances was conducted among teachers, students and housewives,
moving toward a broad insurrectionary process. If a political organization or social
movement not know who will ally themselves probably do not know too, that targets medium
and long term wants to fulfill. This is because, perhaps many of its members are averse to
bureaucracy, when in fact, organize, paraphrasing Errico Malatesta is the only effective
guarantee against bureaucratization, and not vice versa. Some of these militants may also
believe that in militancy, things will occur "spontaneously", until one day, in which a
critical point in the relationship between the classes "explode" in the form of a
revolution. Loosely speaking, this idea is similar to the Marxist myth, the contradiction
caused by the critical development of the productive forces. The common background of
these ideas is always possible to decrease the dimension of human action and therefore
exempt militants themselves the responsibility of inefficient tactic chosen by their
movements and organizations.

An organization and a social movement that is being structured in accordance with the
progress of their work will be confronted at some point, with the limits of their demands.
Today, in Brazil, we see a series of social movements and grassroots initiatives and worst
completely dispersed, divided by demadas extremely specific. There are cultural
collectives, cooperatives of consumption and production, feminist collectives, education,
art or agroecology, in many cases, restricted to meet its own demands. This
compartmentalization of social movements is seen by some as a result of the new
configuration assume that movements in a world increasingly advanced: what some authors
call of liquid modernity or postmodernity. It is the myth of the story that unfolds
patiently in the eyes of the actors. From this perspective, it remains to us, "surfarmos
the wave" of history and accept the fate that some hidden force secretly established. But
make no mistake with this self-deception. The story does not unfold itself and is not the
product of a secret force (or the productive forces, the Hegelian-Marxist myth described
above). While we recognize that there are changes we can not control, human action and
works created by individuals is decisive.

NGOs were able to take advantage (and reinforced) this movement. Setorizaram the demands
of the working class and hitched the resolution of their demands to the agreements with
the state. The result of this movement is the inability of the working class and the
oppressed in forging effective instruments to counter state and the bourgeoisie.

That does not mean, as anarchist political organization, we disrespect the vocations of
social movements which we operate. This is the practice of Leninism, which we condemn and
move away while libertarians. But it takes work to overcome the compartmentalization is
not always reinforce it by appealing to a supposed "uniqueness" of the fights. A movement
that has a specific demand (eg, culture) can, in advance of its work effectively integrate
with other forms of struggle to establish an effective political alliances, which can
overcome the sectorization.

The struggles and their expansion conditions are obviously always natural, historical
contexts they emerge as well. But if we can not draw any "rule" of the general processes
of social movements or revolutionary in its organizational dynamics, it does not mean to
say that no form of knowledge and analysis are possible. Therefore, an analysis of real
processes implies sincerely look for successes and failures, trying to incorporate
critical elements that can make a political organization and social movements that
campaigned effective.

An interesting perspective is to aggregate different demands work in the same social
movement, rather than enter into the various social movements sectored. The Movement of
Landless Rural Workers (MST), despite having as central flag the issue of land, known as
culture, education and other elements, are critical in the formation of the movement.
Other movements that have contact and about working to resolve different demands within
the same movement: economic, cultural, educational and professional. If its militants had
chosen to create a group, or collective movement for each demand (an economic cooperative,
a collective culture, an art group, etc.). Would not have the success we have today in
many cases.

It's central reinforce the class aspect of our proposal. A proposed class must be the
"glue" that binds the different demands of the workers. What the ruling class fears is
precisely when these movements outweigh their specificity and are part of a broad and
popular design class, which articulates, the bases of what we learned with Bakunin and
Malatesta, a true arc oppressed. The task of the anarchist political organization is just
as active minority enhance the structure of social movements that are inserted. A social
movement organized and well structured beats the mentality of networks and formalizes its
objectives, methods and strategies. And especially, can effectively formalize its policy
of alliances. To formalize a policy of alliances, the historical actors, ie the militants,
flesh and blood, should assume that they are responsible for making that policy. Today,
there is no anarchist organization (or left) that could participate in all fights. An
organization that chooses to engage "in every fight" probably does not have a well defined
strategic program, or this is not understood by its members. It may happen that this
superficially join the varied struggles over his foundation work, which will have dire
consequences in the long term for the organization.

A well-defined political program involves prioritizing certain activities and thus
participate in what contributes to the strategic plan of the organization. If there is no
understanding of what contributes to this project or not, the organization will probably
not internalized its program. Having a strategic horizon involves some say "no" to certain
activities and participate in other more intensely. The opposite of this is the random
part of what "appears", without thinking, even briefly, about what and why we are engaging
in a certain activity. I reiterate that this work is not a reflection of work
"highlighted" the reality in many cases it happens within the process, the "eye" of the
hurricane, between rights and wrongs of political organization.

A political program and a well-defined strategic horizon, therefore, make no subordinemos
to our membership that gives more visibility at the time, or what the bourgeois media news
more closely. This is the case of many parties Trotskyists, which are guided according to
the expediency of time. The role of vanguard is deeply dependent on the image of "being in
all fights" (even though in many cases is superficially). This image consists serves as a
magnet for new members. Still, we must not fall into the other extreme. There are
struggles and activities that even the distant tactical plan that established political
organization, can be interesting activities for the propaganda of the organization or of a
particular social movement. An organization with a base of relevant work, but that does
not "appear", runs the risk of transmitting an image asymmetric policy. I believe there is
a rule to follow, but the militants of "flesh and blood" between correcting mistakes and
successes will line the organization and its strategic alliance policy in its own
dynamics. Do not discuss it can bring harm to the entire organization and profoundly limit
the scope of its policy.

The bottom line is that / the militants are aware that the anarchist political
organization ever and is ready to discuss a policy of alliances effectively is to know who
we can count on for the next steps in a contract that can only be collective.